Search

We describe a distinctive approach to business associated with the major corporations in India and contrast it with practices in the United States. Specifically, the Indian approach eschews the explicit pursuit of shareholder value in favor of goals associated with a social mission. These companies make extraordinary investments in their employees and empower them in decision making. These practices combine with a distinctively Indian approach to problem solving to create a competitive advantage that has led to spectacular business growth, not just within India but in international markets as well. A particularly important lesson for the United States is that the major Indian companies are not succeeding despite the fact that they are pursuing a social mission and investing in their employees. They are succeeding precisely because they do so. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

We use the interorganizational and intraclass perspectives to examine how hypothesized causes and consequences of interlocking influence one stage in the process by which the interlock network connecting large U.S. corporations is reproduced over time - the reconstitution of disrupted ties. The results of our analysis suggest: 1) that only two of the organizational and class interests associated with interlocking in previous cross-sectional studies operate in the reconstitution stage-the level of interindustry resource constraint between nonfinancial and financial finns and the membership of firms' directors in the same local capitalist class segment, 2) that the interorganizational linkages and intraclass bonds in which ties may become embedded and which they may facilitate are also important determinants of this stage, and 3) that the interorganizational and intraclass perspectives provide valid and interrelated explanations of interlocking, and thus should be integrated in future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The prospect of offshoring and outsourcing business processes has captured the imagination of CEOs everywhere. In the past five years, a rising number of companies in North America and Europe have experimented with this strategy, hoping to reduce costs and gain strategic advantage. But many businesses have had mixed results. According to several studies, half the organizations that have shifted processes offshore have failed to generate the expected financial benefits. What's more, many of them have faced employee resistance and consumer dissatisfaction. Clearly, companies have to rethink how they formulate their offshoring strategies. A three-part methodology can help. First, companies need to prioritize their processes, ranking each based on two criteria: the value it creates for customers and the degree to which the company can capture some of that value. Companies will want to keep their core (highest-priority) processes in-house and consider outsourcing their commodity (low-priority) processes; critical (moderate-priority) processes are up for debate and must be considered carefully. Second, businesses should analyze all the risks that accompany offshoring and look systematically at their critical and commodity processes in terms of operational risk (the risk that processes won't operate smoothly after being offshored) and structural risk (the risk that relationships with service providers may not work as expected). Finally, companies should determine possible locations for their offshore efforts, as well as the organizational forms--such as captive centers and joint ventures--that those efforts might take. They can do so by examining each process's operational and structural risks side by side. This article outlines the tools that will help companies choose the right processes to offshore. It also describes a new organizational structure called the extended organization, in which companies specify the quality of services they want and work alongside providers to get that quality.